Every week, with will post photos of a specific dress and discuss the various aspects on how the dress was built. A dress dissection, if you will.
by Heather » Sun Jan 30, 2005 10:59 am
-
- Site Admin
-
- Posts: 5114
- Joined: Tue Jul 13, 2004 6:03 pm
- Location: Riverside, CA

-
-
- Information Junkie
-
- Posts: 550
- Joined: Mon Dec 27, 2004 6:57 pm
- Location: Houston, Tx

-
by tinman815 » Mon Jan 31, 2005 10:13 am
WHY IS SHE SITTING!!! tricky tricky

hmm.....I recognize the vested bodice from the early bustle era, so that's what i will say. 1872 for a date.

-
- Information Junkie
-
- Posts: 741
- Joined: Fri Nov 19, 2004 4:29 pm
- Location: Brookshire, TEXAS!!!

by ashamanja babu » Mon Jan 31, 2005 1:54 pm
I will say 1871-2 because of the wide sleeves ending in an open bell shape, very full skirt, neckline with revers and little ruffle, the use of pleated trim, and the long, loose-bottomed bodice.
I think it may be a walking or visiting dress, because she is holding a parasol and the long sleeves and shape of the neckline obviously indicate this dress is for day wear.
Nice plate this week! This is my favorite Victorian 'look.'
-ashamanja babu
-
- Information Junkie
-
- Posts: 665
- Joined: Tue Aug 24, 2004 9:49 am
- Location: St. Paul, MN

-
by Miss Elisabeth » Tue Feb 01, 2005 9:52 am
I'm saying 1871 maybe 69.
It has the ealry bustle look.
This looks like an eafternoon dress.
Elizabeth
-
- Information Junkie
-
- Posts: 550
- Joined: Tue Jul 20, 2004 2:00 pm
- Location: Snowy, Blowy Upsate NY! :\

-
by Miranda » Tue Feb 01, 2005 11:19 am
I know I am going to be wrong, but about everyone has got the dates I would choose usually. I'm going to go really early, say 67-68?
I agree that this is probably a visting dress, or perhaps for promenade. The pagoda sleeves set this dress pretty early from what I have seen, the later the period, the tighter the wrist tends to get.
I would definately place this as a grande bustle TV108 necessary, with TV202 over it, trimmed in a false front with overskirt, extra gathers along the hem. I'd intially use TV405 vest, lengthen the skirting all around it and subsitute the sleeves of TV440, build it a startched white lining with attached ruffle and repeat the same ruffle around the neck
-
by diana » Wed Feb 02, 2005 10:07 am
Definitely early bustle. Probably 1872 or 73. I've definitely seen flared wrists like this in that time period.
Diana
Mississippi Diamond
-
- Master Gabber
-
- Posts: 2356
- Joined: Thu Aug 12, 2004 3:33 pm
- Location: Orange County, CA

by Gwenderful » Thu Feb 03, 2005 10:05 am
I'm going to say an 1870 Afternoon Dress. The skirt is foofy enough that it seems like early 1870s but it's still pretty full.
Gwen
-
- Inquiring Mind
-
- Posts: 248
- Joined: Sun Jan 23, 2005 7:12 am
- Location: St Paul, MN

-
by Maudelynn » Thu Feb 03, 2005 2:26 pm
1872-73
the bodice looks to be early bustle and the back looks a bit poufy
-
- Inquiring Mind
-
- Posts: 122
- Joined: Wed Feb 02, 2005 9:24 pm
- Location: Seattle

-
by CatherineJS » Sat Feb 05, 2005 2:27 pm
OK, everyone's said about what I would, so I won't guess (walking dress, 1873, vest basque, grand bustle...) But I have a question about the puffings on the underskirt. Are they a nightmare to iron? I am making a calico "picnic" dress for this summer. I love those puffs but want this one to be really easy to care for. (I'll be eating outside and chasing two small boys) How would they look in a broadcloth, with maybe some grosgrain ribbon for trimming?
Thanks!
Catherine
-
- Inquiring Mind
-
- Posts: 323
- Joined: Tue Oct 12, 2004 8:12 am
- Location: SF Bay Area

by ashamanja babu » Mon Feb 07, 2005 8:00 am
The puffings do look really hard, if not impossible, to iron. It almost seems you would have to take the skirt apart to really iron it. I would think that to keep the puffs from looking all crunkled, you would have to just use a less wrinkle-prone fabric, instead of counting on the possibility of ironing them. Broadcloth may be too tightly woven, and I'm not sure you would get the soft fluffy look from using broadcloth anyway.
There is such a thing as a puff iron, it's like a little hot egg, but I've never used one so I can't say whether they work or not.
Amazon drygoods is the only place I know of that sells one; you would need to order by phone or request the General Catalog.
http://www.amazondrygoods.com/
-
- Information Junkie
-
- Posts: 665
- Joined: Tue Aug 24, 2004 9:49 am
- Location: St. Paul, MN

-
by diana » Mon Feb 07, 2005 9:57 am
Catherine: I don't do the usual "attach to ribbon" to make the poufs because I want to easily wash and iron the overskirt. I make individual ties and tack them to the spots I want the material to meet (I don't tie them tightly against the fabric however; I leave about 2 inches from the tie to the material where it's tacked.) I think Heather's wash overskirt has this concept. I don't have that pattern so you may want to ask her.
Diana
Mississippi Diamond
-
- Master Gabber
-
- Posts: 2356
- Joined: Thu Aug 12, 2004 3:33 pm
- Location: Orange County, CA

by Heather » Mon Feb 07, 2005 10:13 am
You have to keep in mind that Victorian clothing was rarely washed, so tacking poufs and trims permanently in place was not a problem for them.
If you need to let the poufs down for washing, a great way to attach the poufs is to use a wider ribbon as your tie and place button holes at the locations of attachment. Then put buttons inside the skirt to match.
-
- Site Admin
-
- Posts: 5114
- Joined: Tue Jul 13, 2004 6:03 pm
- Location: Riverside, CA

-
by Heather » Sat Feb 12, 2005 9:45 am
This is a dress from the August 3, 1873 issue of Lamode Illustre. I was made by the house of Mme Foulard. There was no discription. Or if there was, I can't find as it's in French.
What makes this and 1873 dress?
This is most definatly early bustle. The lines of trimming are horizontal. The long vest and wide sleeves are a style popular in 1872-3. The sheer amount of trimmings was at it's fulllest in this period also. A dress of 1870 say would be more simplified. And by 1874 the sleeves would be narrower again.
Costruction ideas:
Start with TV405 for the bodice. It would have to be lengthened in the front and the neckline and collar reshaped to exactly match the plate. Change the sleeves to a small bell sleeve (sorry don't have one yet).
For the skirt, start with 201, or 202 would be better I think. Place the large puffings on the front panel only. Leave the two side panels plain above the bottom ruffle, and add a fall with dagged edges to the back seam, tacking the folds out across the panel. The back may be poufed, it's hard to tell. Add a wide bow and several ties to the back.
-
- Site Admin
-
- Posts: 5114
- Joined: Tue Jul 13, 2004 6:03 pm
- Location: Riverside, CA

-
by Kate9685 » Thu Feb 17, 2005 12:08 pm
I'd guess at slightly later - maybe 1885. Looks more like late bustle era to me.
-
Return to Victorian Dress in Detail
Who is online
Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 0 guests